The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 16 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 14081 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Using RCBO to overcome high Zs but what about short circuits?

Sparkymania
This is something that occurred to me a while ago.

If the Zs is too high for the breaker to operate we ether install a downrated breaker is possible or an RCBO.

My supervisor said something about if an RCBO was installed for this reason then having to test for PSCC at the end of circuit but couldn't say why. He had been told this by NICEIC but no explanation as to why. I argued that this didn't make sense as PFC is only needed at the point where the protective device is and if it's lower at the DB than that of the PD then it will be even lower the further you go down the circuit. I've seen a video that has explained the reason. It's the current flow to trip the breaker on a short circuit rather than an earth fault. Obvious really when you think about it.

However, why would you use a max Zs for line to earth to make sure the resistance allows current flow to trip a breaker for a line to earth fault but not use the same for a line to neutral fault? Surely the impedances would be the same. You already have the max Zs to hand in many tables. With the PSCC you have to calculate what current is needed to trip the breaker or check the tables in the regs. Why do it one way for one and the other way for the other?

Therefore, if you had a C32 MCB with max Zs of 0.54 that would be the same for the line to neutral impedance. Why not just do a Ze then a Z line-neutral.

I see a problem with this as well. RCBOs are often used for higher measured Zs than max Zs if the breaker can't be downrated. But a lot of the time the impedance between line and earth and line and neutral can be almost the same and in a circuit wired with the same size CPC both impedances can be the same. So using and RCD to overcome Zs that's over the max still leaves a problem with a short circuit. This is never taken into account.

This is more an issue with thermal contraints than with shock protection.


I searched the post but couldn't find anything with this subject, although it might be there and I've used the wrong search words.
Parents
  • 0
    If the L-N loop imp. is too high won't that mean the current flow will then be too low, the same as it would be for L-E loop imp.

    We don't test for PEFC to make sure an MCB will trip on an earth fault.

    Why use loop imp for earth fault but PSCC for short circuit? Aren't we doing the same thing for both faults?

    By taking Zs and comparing it to max Zs for the OCPD we are making sure there will be enough fault current.

    We would already know the max Zs so why not just take a second tests after Zs at the point of test Z l-n?


    It wouldn't matter if the circuit had a reduced CPC size as you would be taking both readings. It's also dependent on the PEFC and PSCC at the origin to begin with so taking both impedance readings will give you the info that is needed.


    Farmboy. FYI for some reason your second post did not come up here. The only reason I know you posted again was the email I got.
Reply
  • 0
    If the L-N loop imp. is too high won't that mean the current flow will then be too low, the same as it would be for L-E loop imp.

    We don't test for PEFC to make sure an MCB will trip on an earth fault.

    Why use loop imp for earth fault but PSCC for short circuit? Aren't we doing the same thing for both faults?

    By taking Zs and comparing it to max Zs for the OCPD we are making sure there will be enough fault current.

    We would already know the max Zs so why not just take a second tests after Zs at the point of test Z l-n?


    It wouldn't matter if the circuit had a reduced CPC size as you would be taking both readings. It's also dependent on the PEFC and PSCC at the origin to begin with so taking both impedance readings will give you the info that is needed.


    Farmboy. FYI for some reason your second post did not come up here. The only reason I know you posted again was the email I got.
Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines